(May 16, 2016 at 6:48 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Well, isn't that a terrible analogy...

how so?

If the belief that God is eternal = being able to explain the essence of God.

Then the belief in abiogenesis = being able to explain how it began.

The latter should actually the easier of the two seeing how God is invisible.

(May 16, 2016 at 6:55 am)Huggy74 Wrote: how so?

Really? Because science tirelessly works toward explaining those mechanisms beyond a reasonable doubt with facts and evidence. Just because we don't have a theoretical (though we do a hypothetical) model for abiogenesis, doesn't mean we never will. It doesn't mean that the work of scientists won't ever get us there.

Christians can't even demonstrate that their God even exists, let alone parse out the nature of his supposed essence, and the mechanisms by which he allegedly acts. Re-reading the same unchanging, 2,000 year old book over and over again will never impart new knowledge in the way that science does. Therefore, your analogy sucks.

(May 16, 2016 at 7:06 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(May 16, 2016 at 6:55 am)Huggy74 Wrote: how so?

Really?  Because science tirelessly works toward explaining those mechanisms beyond a reasonable doubt with facts and evidence.  Just because we don't have a theoretical (though we do a hypothetical) model for abiogenesis, doesn't mean we never will.  It doesn't mean that the work of scientists won't ever get us there.  

Christians can't even demonstrate that their God even exists, let alone parse out the nature of his supposed essence, and the mechanisms by which he allegedly acts.  Re-reading the same unchanging, 2,000 year old book over and over again will never impart new knowledge in the way that science does.  Therefore, your analogy sucks.

I edited my previous post for clarification.

what you wrote is irrelevant to my point.

If one surmises that a belief in something equates to full knowledge of how it works / exists (which is not what "belief" even means), then according to that logic a belief in abiogenesis should require one to know exactly how it works, yes or no?

And to be clear, I'm not asking for your personal feelings, I'm asking according to the aforementioned "logic".

(May 16, 2016 at 6:23 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Let me turn your logic back onto you a second, I'm sure you believe life started on earth through abiogenesis, go ahead and explain the exact process; preferably in a way that can be reproduced scientifically.

Now pay attention to how I respond to this Huggy, are you ready?

I don't know how life began, I don't know enough about biology to speculate on it either so I won't pretend to know. I do think natural causes is more likely than magic. But I'm not making any claims about it.

So, yes, there is a difference in what you believe Vs. what I don't. And again, I'm not making claims, you are. You've just erected a straw-man in attempt to shift your burden of proof. Now, you try...

But to make it clear, you would be absolutely right to challenge any claims I made regarding abiogenesis. If I did, I would bear the burden of proof. Just like you do now...cuz that's what you did with what you read in the bible. But that's kinda where knowledge extracted from the bible ends...I know you know this song!

"Jesus loves me this I know.
For the bible tells me so.
Little ones to him belong.
They are weak but he is strong..."

Come on Huggy, sing it for us!

(May 16, 2016 at 8:33 am)The Reality Salesman Wrote: But to make it clear, you would be absolutely right to challenge any claims I made regarding abiogenesis. If I did, I would bear the burden of proof. Just like you do now...cuz that's what you did with what you read in the bible. But that's kinda where knowledge extracted from the bible ends...I know you know this song!

"Jesus loves me this I know.
For the bible tells me so.
Little ones to him belong.
They are weak but he is strong..."

Come on Huggy, sing it for us!

The Jesus of history did not love anyone; his message was not of love but one of apocalyptic justice.  He was a prophet of doom who saw the "Son of Man" (probably, an angelic being) coming to Earth to punish the Romans and all the other opponents of Israel.  He did not consider himself to even be divine, just a man announcing to the World (and, like everyone else, Jesus believed in a flat Earth) that the End was nigh.

(May 16, 2016 at 8:12 am)The Reality Salesman Wrote:

(May 16, 2016 at 6:23 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Let me turn your logic back onto you a second, I'm sure you believe life started on earth through abiogenesis, go ahead and explain the exact process; preferably in a way that can be reproduced scientifically.

Now pay attention to how I respond to this Huggy, are you ready?

I don't know how life began, I don't know enough about biology to speculate on it either so I won't pretend to know. I do think natural causes is more likely than magic. But I'm not making any claims about it.

So, yes, there is a difference in what you believe Vs. what I don't. And again, I'm not making claims, you are. You've just erected a straw-man in attempt to shift your burden of proof. Now, you try...

First of all, my belief in what the bible says doesn't require any proof, hence why it's called a BELIEF.

Quote:Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

Secondly do you agree with abiogenesis or not? You sound a little ambiguous.

(May 16, 2016 at 10:03 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Secondly do you agree with abiogenesis or not? You sound a little ambiguous.

Do you believe in carbon?  If so, where did carbon come from?  That lfie came from non-life is not doubted by anyone, at least in biology.  Where do you think sperm come from?  Are they alive?  Do you think that god created the sperm within your body?

To your first point Huffy. I know that. We all do. And that's why we don't agree. I know you don't require evidence for your beliefs and that you will form your entire life around a core belief without the slightest hesitatation...

It is my experience however, that people do not believe things because it makes them feel good (at least not consciously), you believe things that you think are true. For example:

Suppose I told you that if you responded to this post via your laptop, as soon as you click "post reply", your laptop will explode and you will be killed.

1) If you believed me, you certainly would not respond from your laptop unless suicide was your goal.

2) If you believed I was wrong, you'd respond as usual without the slightest hesitation.

3) If you were curious, and you found what I said to be plausible, you would probably have your computer checked out and look closer before forming a belief that will influence your actions.

4) The only 4th option is if you didn't have a laptop, and whether or not what I said was true wouldn't matter and you may not form a belief about it either way. You're not forming a belief wouldn't change anything about how much you know about this exploding laptop, simply put, you don't know and you don't really care. You don't have any belief one way or another.

If you didn't want to die, you couldn't both believe me because you want to and do it anyway. If you form a belief, you either believe something to be true, or you don't. That's how that works.

With regards to abiogenesis, I'm in that 4th position.

Your second statement.

Hopefully, by now it is clear that what you interpret as ambiguity is actually humility and self awareness of ones own ignorance. It is really baffling to me that some people are unable to see past such black and white thinking. You seem to be insisting that epistemology is a dichotomy, where one either believes A to be true, or believes A to be wrong. I'm telling you that I simply do not know. if you presented me with two possibilities, I might find one more plausible than the other, but that wouldn't mean I'm convinced that one is true, nor does it denote any degree of belief. Belief is not a choice, it's just what happens when you've been convinced by something. You and I just have different criteria that we find to be convincing and as you said above, facts and evidence aren't important to you, so we're kind of far apart here, bud.

(May 16, 2016 at 10:25 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(May 16, 2016 at 10:03 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Secondly do you agree with abiogenesis or not? You sound a little ambiguous.

Do you believe in carbon?  If so, where did carbon come from?  That lfie came from non-life is not doubted by anyone, at least in biology.  Where do you think sperm come from?  Are they alive?  Do you think that god created the sperm within your body?

We can also make clear that life isn't just something that's switched on and voila it exists. The boundary between life and non-life is pretty much arbitrary. When we look at life as more of a spectrum, and a gradual outcome of certain activities over a long period of time, it becomes easier to accept that "life" can come from "non-life"